Im not going to quote anything, too much to sort trough. But first off, I dont think the game is declining either, ive personally seen how it isnt. I was just replying to Constantine who used "declining" and so I used it aswell. Still stand fast that what we need aren't big changes to mortals but more interactive and smaller changes.

Also, I agree that we shouldnt see exactly everything on mortals, that wouldn't make sense, for example a mortal isn't going to tell you that he is prone to running away when you recruit him. But some kind of demographic info would be good, like atleast how many of what ages we have. Possibly even how many female and male mortals there are, afterall, a very effective way to kill off future generations would be to slaughter all the females of another realm. That could be an intresting addition actually, if your towns female population is very low compared to the male population that should lower the pop increase rate from the normal rate, and possibly later down the line create unrest.

Anyways, enough of that. You should probably also see some kind of info about how many people are working what jobs. For example, if you want to recruit archers for your army youd probably recruit someone with pre-existing experience, like a hunter. Especially because getting proficient with a bow is more difficult than with a spear. Or if not info about what jobs they are working, then atleast a way to set a preference for which kind of people to try and recruit most when recruiting. That is if this becomes a thing with them having traits.

You could then decide that you want to for example recruit people who make a good living and can eat well to get slightly tougher, stronger and just better soldiers physically, but possible they would flee just slightly easier than poor recruits who would have more resolve I guess, or maybe make up for it by fighting slightly harder instead of having a more indimitating physique? And also try to recruit people around 20-25 for a good age where you can train them easier. And then additionaly try to recruit farm workers so they are stronger than say a city boy.

Something like that sounds like something that would actually happen and would also not involve a whole lot of micro, atleast not on an individual level.

Initially I was against this, but now I'm thinking it makes sense in a limited capacity. Like, if you build a fort somewhere (yes, that'll be a thing), you should just have to assign a group of your soldiers there after visiting once and then be able to reinforce them from afar. Obviously this will require supply lines and siege-awareness to both be actualy things, but I'm certainly warming up to the concept. First Ones ARE supposed to be leaders.

Those are some interesting thoughts about greater use of automation and First Ones actually being supposed to be leaders. It actually made me think about a game called Stellar Monarch. Setting aside the details of the game, the basic premise is that a leader should be played as a leader who really makes the key decisions and then lets the subordinates deal with the details.

One of Tom's attempted solutions to the issue of really dedicated players having advantages over more casual players was to make some aspects of the game time consuming to manage (selection of soldiers, for example). But perhaps there's an alternative to be found in automation - remove some of the advantages really active players have by lessening the need for so much to be hands-on. Let the players (being First Ones and leaders) make the important decisions and then let the mortals carry out the details. At the moment, the First Ones are actually frontline leaders who have to be present to do almost everything. Maybe there's another way to go? Let First Ones make key decisions on things like where troops should be deployed and whether they should stand and fight, retreat, or what ever. Then let automation sort out the details.

I don't know. It would potentially be a massive change to the way the game works, but it could be worth considering. I remember when the game was being developed, it was never the original intention for one player to have to fulfill every role in the way a player has to now. The original thought was that some players would be fighters; some would be settlement managers; some would be political and diplomatic players; each according to what they found interesting. But, somewhere along the line, we reached the current position where a player basically has to do it all in order to maintain their gameplay. Perhaps that's not actually how the game should be?

Logged

Standing for the responsible use of power since Year 1, Week 1, Day 1.Fun fact: I wrote some of the text for the M&F crowdfunding campaign.Favourite warm beverage: hot chocolate.

Im not going to quote anything, too much to sort trough. But first off, I dont think the game is declining either, ive personally seen how it isnt. I was just replying to Constantine who used "declining" and so I used it aswell. Still stand fast that what we need aren't big changes to mortals but more interactive and smaller changes.

Also, I agree that we shouldnt see exactly everything on mortals, that wouldn't make sense, for example a mortal isn't going to tell you that he is prone to running away when you recruit him. But some kind of demographic info would be good, like atleast how many of what ages we have. Possibly even how many female and male mortals there are, afterall, a very effective way to kill off future generations would be to slaughter all the females of another realm. That could be an intresting addition actually, if your towns female population is very low compared to the male population that should lower the pop increase rate from the normal rate, and possibly later down the line create unrest.

Anyways, enough of that. You should probably also see some kind of info about how many people are working what jobs. For example, if you want to recruit archers for your army youd probably recruit someone with pre-existing experience, like a hunter. Especially because getting proficient with a bow is more difficult than with a spear. Or if not info about what jobs they are working, then atleast a way to set a preference for which kind of people to try and recruit most when recruiting. That is if this becomes a thing with them having traits.

You could then decide that you want to for example recruit people who make a good living and can eat well to get slightly tougher, stronger and just better soldiers physically, but possible they would flee just slightly easier than poor recruits who would have more resolve I guess, or maybe make up for it by fighting slightly harder instead of having a more indimitating physique? And also try to recruit people around 20-25 for a good age where you can train them easier. And then additionaly try to recruit farm workers so they are stronger than say a city boy.

Something like that sounds like something that would actually happen and would also not involve a whole lot of micro, atleast not on an individual level.

Levy archers were actually quite common. A Longbow man is hard to train. A short bow man shooting in massed volley is not a particularly difficult one. Remember we aren't talking about archers being snipers, most battlefield archery in European conflicts occurred at ranges beyond which you can aim at individual targets.

1. Combat Support UnitsThey might possibly be included in entourage, but I'll pull some concepts from Battlemaster here.Captains/Officers: Cost money and/or demand pay to recruit (perhaps as mercenaries or already experienced), or perhaps they can be drafted from your pool of soldiers. The latter might be better, as then they could possibly be equipped as your soldiers are. While alive and depending upon their skill, they could help bolster morale, add slight offensive OR defensive bonuses (one at a time; shield wall or an offensive formation for example), and perhaps most importantly, maintain order in a retreat or withdrawal, preventing a messy route. They could also help slightly speed up regrouping after combat (win, lose or draw).Another bonus is perhaps creating patrols with these officers, especially if NPC bandits (presumably weaker) are added.Militia Captain/Drill Captain: Same as above, but perhaps cheaper and stationary. Perhaps a requirement for training militia/soldiers for training experience (elaborated upon later)Banner Carriers: Mostly flavor, but perhaps could offer a slight morale bonus. Might also work as troop equipment (replacing weapons). In any case, they should cost wealth/gold to produce -- dyes can get pricy!Healers: Slightly increase chances of survival for wounded troops and critically wounded nobles! Expensive and trained from Alchemists, with quality possibly boosted (or only able to recruited if both exist) with a new building such as an Herbalist shack which could bring extra value to forests.

2. Training/Drill ExperienceTo build on a concept others have discussed, make SOME experience trainable! It should require an additional building tree to prevent interfering with training new soldiers. (e.g. "you can recruit OR DRILL up to 43 soldiers at a time before things slow down". Drilling a unit would require the same buildings that allow training for their equipment. The basic building could be Drill Grounds for example, while another level could be Drill Square. The first being a cleared field, much like a Training Field, while the Drill Square is a much more professional construction.What is Drill Experience? Drill experience would begin to expire after a certain amount of time has passed, so relatively constant drilling is necessary. The number of drillable soldiers before impact should be significantly less than what's required for adequate or good economic security, so that managing experience is a fine balance. If training battles, etc, are added, they should have higher risk but still offer Drill experience -- just more of it and obviously not requiring drill grounds. Drill/Militia Captains, outlined above, could slightly increase the amount of experience allowed, decrease the decay, or allow slightly more troops to be drilled.

3. First One Equipment: Not necessarily providing any significant bonus, but it would be nice to have a general idea of what's available for our characters and perhaps a dedicated description spot. What is your house known for wearing? What kind of weapons would the average noble in your realm use?

4. Custom Unit Type Names: Maybe a bonus feature for subscribing or costing credits to make. It should probably exist at a realm, estate or Family level for RP reasons. Maybe you want all Cavalry equipped with a spear, shield and warhorse to be called Paladins -- then on the Battlefield and scouting reports you could have replacement text: Paladins (heavy cavalry)and maybe clicking on it would offer a description of what they look like; maybe they're all wearing impressive surcoats, or they're like hussars and have terrifying 'wings.' Mostly an RP thing, but it would add flavor. Mechanically, it would be nice to have a realm level troop and say "Recruit more Ascalonian Heavy Sergeants!" and you can select that unit type, assuming you have the available spears, mail and shields (or whatever they use), enter the amount, and hit train.

5. Company/Army Titles:Mercenaries have titles; First Ones can have titles (known as...) and if their group of soldiers or even a group of militia gets successful, why can't they get a name that might inspire fear or awe?

6. Special Unit Types/Irregulars/Improvised Weapons/Mobs:It would be nice to have (limited amounts) of predetermined units available for recruitment, that have unique characteristics from mercenaries and don't necessarily cost money. Here's a few examples:Improvised Weapons: Two categories. Ranged (rocks, homemade bows, spears and things like that) and Melee (pitchforks, sticks, shovels, torches) that are less effective but require almost not real training to use.Mobs: Maybe if things are going bad (bandit raids), or a First One tries to "collect" too much taxes without a strong company, mobs using improvised weapons crop up. If not hostile, they would effectively function as a temporary, weak militia that offers little economic security and puts the working population at risk. If hostile, then they're a (albeit minor) threat to First Ones and the settlement itself.Militia Levies: Like mobs, but actually raised by a First One in desperation. They can travel, but lose morale and will probably run back home if they're away from home for too long. Not very effective, but they do bolster numbers. Two categories: Ranged and Melee. Cannot retrain weapon or armor class (which would all be pretty weak). Maybe if they live long enough to get experience.Royal/Leader Guard: Very small retinue of well trained and well equipped guards that could accompany realm leaders. Very limited amount; they're highly trusted after all.Others could possibly fit in here, all with restrictions including when they can be recruited (only in villages, or towns, or cities, etc, and in certain regions) and generally not being able to be altered. Generally, most of them wouldn't do well moved too far from their homes. Any soldier recruited that's not really even semi professional (e.g. Militia Levies described as above, or possibly Hunters or whatever else you come up with, etc) should have big effects vs normal militia on the local economy. Your expert farmers and hunters, while now offering a relatively effective and cheap defense force, are putting their skills to use FAR, FAR less to actually doing work. Thus using these quickly trained and specialized forces should lower settlement production and population over time unless disbanded.Stuff like berserkers for appropriate regions could be cool, too. Angry, painted naked guys who inflict morale damage but are easy to kill. Hunters could be less effective than even short bow archers, but maybe help keep supply up in appropriate regions.

8. First One statsMaybe dungeon only, maybe some influence in combat. How quick, or hardy, or skilled with a sword they are... How well they command men. No one should really be able to be good at everything, however. A player should be able to influence it /somewhat/ to fit with roleplay.

9. NPC EventsAlso mentioned previously by myself in this post and other posters... But to elaborate; Bandits not controlled by players, mobs, deserters, wild aggressive animals, poachers, and whatever else.

10. Automatic Tax CollectionCollect a small amount of gold now and then, affected by corruption, distance from your realm/estate, and an established hierarchical tax rate. Maybe I haven't been around long enough, but the only way I know is looting your own settlements. That should still be the most effective way of getting gold from your people, however!

11. New Weapons/EquipmentOr also perhaps revisit how some weapons can be applied to spots. If I want light and mobile infantry (if it's able to be coded in battle script) then maybe I actually want short swords as a primary weapon. Maybe expanded shield types, too; shields made for cavalry, light shields (like wicker), heavy shields (expensive and perhaps slow one down).Banners, occupying the primary weapon spot, if not banner carriers themselves as mentioned above.Pikes/long spears, for an anti-cavalry bonus, but restricting what goes into an equipment or secondary weapon slot. Improvised weapons, for when your men lose theirs. Alcohol, to keep morale up while traveling and after battles. Light crossbows for cavalry or militia, etc.First One dungeoneering equipment or battle equipment.

A lot of these are kind of far-fetched, I know, but they were still generally on my mind and hopefully they can at least spark some more realistic ideas for you all. I don't know what the code-base is like, so I'm sure plenty aren't even really feasible without significant alterations.

The drill grounds idea is pretty good. Sound one. Currently the way to train your soldiers is to attack slumbered First Ones.

Yea, that and naming equipment sets for flavor are probably my favorites and I think add something nice to the game. A lot of the others were somewhat wild ideas I had, but sometimes I find it's worth it to throw stuff down to try to filter out the noise. Dev isn't easy.

I had an idea about troop training. Why not a building, that modified militia? Is it feasible to have a "practice field" where your veteran troops (humans with experience) can train your newbies for you? Say, 1 veteran at 50 xp can give 5 or 6 fresh recruits 1 xp a week (or month, whatever balances. Probably cap max training xp, too). Suddenly those human veterans aren't just expensive fodder, but start to flesh out as individuals. It could even modify production in an estate, and be a proper burden to stack too heavy.